User Tag List

View Poll Results: Does the TSA violate the Constitution?

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    10 58.82%
  • No

    7 41.18%
Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 91
  1. #1
    The face of Hope & Change Array
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,847
    Thanks
    750
    Thanked 718 Times in 507 Posts

    Does the TSA violate the Constitution?

    Simple question... Does the TSA violate the Constitution, in particular the Fourth Amendment?
    Roshi's law: "Anytime someone on a discussion board says something negative about Obama, the opposing side will eventually call them a racist"
    "Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free." – Harry Browne

  2. #2
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    292
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 47 Times in 35 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Roshi View Post
    Simple question... Does the TSA violate the Constitution, in particular the Fourth Amendment?
    The short answer is 'no' - the Federal government is clearly empowered to run the program under its commerce and defense powers. The Fourth Amendment? As applied in limited situations, yes....generally, no, the IV Amendment prohibits UNREASONABLE search or seizure.

    If they didn't screen the passengers would you get on a plane?

    That being said, I still think its overkill. The terrorists, without implying a centralized cohesive decision making process, had set the precedent that the hijacking would end up in a place like Havana, not slamming into a building. Secondly, we're still talking about boxcutters here, the general security at the time didn't let in guns or explosives or things that are designed, in and of themselves, to be weapons.

    All that needed to be done was to keep them out of the cockpit. If you do that, they can slice and dice the passengers to death (not pleasant of course), but not slam the building into the WTC....to a certain extent I think our response was disproportionate based on on the severity of the actual consequences.

    Simply put planes in the future need to be designed to ensure that access from the passenger compartment to the cockpit is simply such an improbable event that even if it were possible, the plane would have sufficient time to land.

    FEDERALIZING airport security? Overkill, but still constitutional.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to new_publius For This Useful Post:

    Djinn (24th January 2012), goldendog (25th January 2012)

  4. #3
    The face of Hope & Change Array
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,847
    Thanks
    750
    Thanked 718 Times in 507 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by newpublius View Post
    The short answer is 'no' - the Federal government is clearly empowered to run the program under its commerce and defense powers. The Fourth Amendment? As applied in limited situations, yes....generally, no, the IV Amendment prohibits UNREASONABLE search or seizure.

    If they didn't screen the passengers would you get on a plane?

    That being said, I still think its overkill. The terrorists, without implying a centralized cohesive decision making process, had set the precedent that the hijacking would end up in a place like Havana, not slamming into a building. Secondly, we're still talking about boxcutters here, the general security at the time didn't let in guns or explosives or things that are designed, in and of themselves, to be weapons.

    All that needed to be done was to keep them out of the cockpit. If you do that, they can slice and dice the passengers to death (not pleasant of course), but not slam the building into the WTC....to a certain extent I think our response was disproportionate based on on the severity of the actual consequences.

    Simply put planes in the future need to be designed to ensure that access from the passenger compartment to the cockpit is simply such an improbable event that even if it were possible, the plane would have sufficient time to land.

    FEDERALIZING airport security? Overkill, but still constitutional.
    Not constitutional if they are conducting random searches and patdowns. There is no "reasonable" or "probable cause" for that.... Unconstitutional.

    Check out this thread: random searches by the TSA
    Unconstitutional
    Last edited by Roshi; 23rd January 2012 at 10:58 PM.
    Roshi's law: "Anytime someone on a discussion board says something negative about Obama, the opposing side will eventually call them a racist"
    "Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free." – Harry Browne

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roshi For This Useful Post:

    anonnymous (25th January 2012), Babylon (24th January 2012)

  6. #4
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    292
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 47 Times in 35 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Roshi View Post
    Not constitutional if they are conducting random searches and patdowns. There is no "reasonable" or "probable cause" for that.... Unconstitutional.
    Well, buy a ticket, bring your bags, object to the search and tell them that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. When they tell you not to get on the plane, bring a lawsuit for a million dollars, let me know how it turns out. If they DO let you on the plane, let me know, I'll never get on another one.

  7. #5
    The face of Hope & Change Array
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,847
    Thanks
    750
    Thanked 718 Times in 507 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by newpublius View Post
    Well, buy a ticket, bring your bags, object to the search and tell them that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. When they tell you not to get on the plane, bring a lawsuit for a million dollars, let me know how it turns out. If they DO let you on the plane, let me know, I'll never get on another one.
    When I have the cash to hire a Johnny Cochran, I'll be glad to.
    Roshi's law: "Anytime someone on a discussion board says something negative about Obama, the opposing side will eventually call them a racist"
    "Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free." – Harry Browne

  8. #6
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    292
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 47 Times in 35 Posts
    Well, while you're at it, challenge the constitutionality of the income tax.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to new_publius For This Useful Post:

    Roshi (24th January 2012)

  10. #7
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,254
    Thanks
    240
    Thanked 545 Times in 454 Posts
    Yes.

    First off, the presumption that citizens lose their Second Amendment freedoms when they buy an airplane ticket is false.

    Hence efforts by the TSA to infringe on the people's right to bear arms on aircraft are unconstituitonal.

    Then there's the fact that random strip searches, radiographic imaging, electromagnetic searches, and invasive physical searches violate the Fourth Amendment. Attempting to travel between cities does not in anyway present a reasonable grounds of suspicion to make these practices consistent with the Fourth.

    When has it become constitutional for the government to demand a person's papers before allowing them to move about the country?
    They wielded a invincible weapon. A small wooden plaque bearing the letters F.T.I.W.

    ITSO - Ignoramus That Supports Obama.

  11. #8
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,731
    Thanks
    1,372
    Thanked 2,006 Times in 1,356 Posts
    Yes, IMO, TSA is a legitimate interstate commerce function. On that basis alone it's probably Constitutional. And there are probably others too. As far as what its doing with the strip searches and whatnot, that's very borderline IMO. There are claims that the technology does more than it's supposed to, and if that's the case there are definitely issues. If however all is as it seems (what are the chances? ) then it's probably just within the hairy edge of legality. That's my considered opinion as a non-expert.

  12. #9
    In the Human Network.. Array
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    3,875
    Thanks
    1,422
    Thanked 866 Times in 598 Posts
    I am more afraid of our governments ability to strip my freedoms Than I will ever be of some terrorists trying to avenge their people.

    How many flights have been hijacked in the US? Enough to strip one of our most important rights...? I will never fly again..
    "Cowardice asks the question 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it
    Politic?' Vanity asks the question 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."


    Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Babylon For This Useful Post:

    anonnymous (25th January 2012)

  14. #10
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,632
    Thanks
    439
    Thanked 830 Times in 597 Posts
    NO, nobody has the right to fly. If they want to fly, they need to be screened. Screening passengers for bombs and weapons before boarding a plane is not unreasonable


 
Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2